The right approach is to only look at actual points being made, and not try to infer implications in the first place.
When someone reacts to an implication, the appropriate response is to say “but I/they didn’t say anything about that,” ignore their complaints and move on.
You only have control over your own actions: you can’t control whether your interlocutor over-interprets you or not.
Your “right approach”, which is about how to behave as a listener, is compatible with Michael_PJ’s, which is about how to behave as a speaker: I don’t see why we can’t do both.
But I can control whether I am priming people to get accustomed to over-interpreting.
That sounds potentially important. Could you give an example of a failure mode?
Because my approach is not merely about how to behave as a listener. It’s about speaking without throwing in unnecessary disclaimers.
Consider how my question “Could you give an example...?” reads if I didn’t precede it with the following signal of collaborativeness: “That sounds potentially important.” At least to me (YMMV), I would be like 15% less likely to feel defensive in the case where I precede it with such a signal, instead of leaping into the question—which I would be likely (on a System 1y day) to read as “Oh yeah? Give me ONE example.” Same applies to the phrase “At least to me (YMMV)”: I’m chucking in a signal that I’m willing to listen to your point of view.
Those are examples of disclaimers. I argue these kinds of signals are helpful for promoting a productive atomsphere; do they fall into the category you’re calling “unnecessary disclaimers”? Or is it only something more overt that you’d find counterproductive?
I take the point that different people have different needs with regards to this concern. I hope we can both steer clear of typical-minding everyone else. I think I might be particularly oversensitive to anything resembling conflict, and you are over on the other side of the bell curve in that respect.
That sounds potentially important. Could you give an example of a failure mode?
The failure mode where people over-interpret things that other people say, and then come up with wrong interpretations.
I argue these kinds of signals are helpful for promoting a productive atomsphere; do they fall into the category you’re calling “unnecessary disclaimers”?
Well you should probably signal however friendly you are actually feeling, but I’m not really talking about showing how friendly you are, I’m talking about going out of your way to say “of course I don’t mean X” and so on.
I’m not really talking about showing how friendly you are
It looks like we were talking at cross purposes. I was picking up on the admittedly months-old conversation about “signalling collaborativeness” and [anti-]”combaticism”, which is a separate conversation to the one on value signals. (Value signals are probably a means of signalling collaborativeness though.)
you should probably signal however friendly you are actually feeling
I think politeness serves a useful function (within moderation, of course). ‘Forcing’ people to behave more friendly than they feel saves time and energy.
I think EA has a problem with undervaluing social skills such as basic friendliness. If a community such as EA wants to keep people coming back and contributing their insights, the personal benefits of taking part need to outweigh the personal costs.
I think EA has a problem with undervaluing social skills such as basic friendliness. If a community such as EA wants to keep people coming back and contributing their insights, the personal benefits of taking part need to outweigh the personal costs.
Not if people aren’t attracted to such friendliness. Lots of successful social movements and communities are less friendly than EA.
The right approach is to only look at actual points being made, and not try to infer implications in the first place.
When someone reacts to an implication, the appropriate response is to say “but I/they didn’t say anything about that,” ignore their complaints and move on.
You only have control over your own actions: you can’t control whether your interlocutor over-interprets you or not.
Your “right approach”, which is about how to behave as a listener, is compatible with Michael_PJ’s, which is about how to behave as a speaker: I don’t see why we can’t do both.
But I can control whether I am priming people to get accustomed to over-interpreting.
Because my approach is not merely about how to behave as a listener. It’s about speaking without throwing in unnecessary disclaimers.
That sounds potentially important. Could you give an example of a failure mode?
Consider how my question “Could you give an example...?” reads if I didn’t precede it with the following signal of collaborativeness: “That sounds potentially important.” At least to me (YMMV), I would be like 15% less likely to feel defensive in the case where I precede it with such a signal, instead of leaping into the question—which I would be likely (on a System 1y day) to read as “Oh yeah? Give me ONE example.” Same applies to the phrase “At least to me (YMMV)”: I’m chucking in a signal that I’m willing to listen to your point of view.
Those are examples of disclaimers. I argue these kinds of signals are helpful for promoting a productive atomsphere; do they fall into the category you’re calling “unnecessary disclaimers”? Or is it only something more overt that you’d find counterproductive?
I take the point that different people have different needs with regards to this concern. I hope we can both steer clear of typical-minding everyone else. I think I might be particularly oversensitive to anything resembling conflict, and you are over on the other side of the bell curve in that respect.
The failure mode where people over-interpret things that other people say, and then come up with wrong interpretations.
Well you should probably signal however friendly you are actually feeling, but I’m not really talking about showing how friendly you are, I’m talking about going out of your way to say “of course I don’t mean X” and so on.
https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/05/skip-value-signals.html
It looks like we were talking at cross purposes. I was picking up on the admittedly months-old conversation about “signalling collaborativeness” and [anti-]”combaticism”, which is a separate conversation to the one on value signals. (Value signals are probably a means of signalling collaborativeness though.)
I think politeness serves a useful function (within moderation, of course). ‘Forcing’ people to behave more friendly than they feel saves time and energy.
I think EA has a problem with undervaluing social skills such as basic friendliness. If a community such as EA wants to keep people coming back and contributing their insights, the personal benefits of taking part need to outweigh the personal costs.
Not if people aren’t attracted to such friendliness. Lots of successful social movements and communities are less friendly than EA.